It’s too bad I only have one last life left on this forum. If I had more I could have told you what I really think of your post.

Yes, it is amazing to see so much ignorance in one post. The Big Crunch theory is at least 16 years outdated. The idea of Black Holes coordinating matter in space and time almost made me spit beer on my keyboard. I find it fascinating that people with so little knowledge can be so sure of themselves.

Don’t you think you sound equally as sure. Do you seriously think there’s a current consensus on the origin of the universe? If so I’d be interested in knowing what you think it is.

Don’t you think you sound equally as sure. Do you seriously think there’s a current consensus on the origin of the universe? If so I’d be interested in knowing what you think it is.

Did you miss my post where I said using the phrase “before the Big Bang” was meaningless?

got it - also got the - “You need to read up on modern cosmology (post-1998) instead of basing your beliefs on outdated ideas. Wikipedia has a good starter page: Accelerating Universe.

Instead of collapsing, the Universe will continue expanding ever faster until it reaches the state of ultimate entropy. Look up “heat death of the universe” on Wikipedia. Entropy always wins”
quote - which I was referring to

Don’t you think you sound equally as sure. Do you seriously think there’s a current consensus on the origin of the universe? If so I’d be interested in knowing what you think it is.

Did you miss my post where I said using the phrase “before the Big Bang” was meaningless?

got it - also got the - “You need to read up on modern cosmology (post-1998) instead of basing your beliefs on outdated ideas. Wikipedia has a good starter page: Accelerating Universe.

Instead of collapsing, the Universe will continue expanding ever faster until it reaches the state of ultimate entropy. Look up “heat death of the universe” on Wikipedia. Entropy always wins”
quote - which I was referring to

So you can’t parse the difference between the origin of the universe and the end of the universe?

Signature

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Don’t you think you sound equally as sure. Do you seriously think there’s a current consensus on the origin of the universe? If so I’d be interested in knowing what you think it is.

Did you miss my post where I said using the phrase “before the Big Bang” was meaningless?

got it - also got the - “You need to read up on modern cosmology (post-1998) instead of basing your beliefs on outdated ideas. Wikipedia has a good starter page: Accelerating Universe.

Instead of collapsing, the Universe will continue expanding ever faster until it reaches the state of ultimate entropy. Look up “heat death of the universe” on Wikipedia. Entropy always wins”
quote - which I was referring to

So you can’t parse the difference between the origin of the universe and the end of the universe?

I don’t think there’s a consensus on either - and if there is you can be sure it will change a year from now. I also found it funny that you were challenging him on his dated information. What information isn’t dated?

Do you really think all atheist share your definition of atheism? I know 4 people who call themselves atheist - none of whom define it as you do - most just dislike religion and repeat - “there’s no God” when asked about what they believe. And of course a non-belief is a belief in itself - what is it that you don’t believe?

The premise of your argument Patrick is based on anecdotal evidence only. I know hundreds of people who believe there is a god. So what? It proves nothing but that these people have faith in some supreme being and nothing more. Once again, if there is a god then using emperical evidence, prove your contention. that’s why I’m an atheist. I have no faith nor belief in a supreme being because it has not been scientifically proven and am not clinging to a “belief” as you style it, as I would change my position if Spock’s brother actually “found” god on a planet. In this case, belief implies faith in an unproven contention.

Cap’t Jack

I may have asked you already but - do you think a higher being would want to provide us with empirical evidence? Would it be a benefit to our existence or a detriment? Imagine how would it change our psyche. I like the Spock analogy - but I’m more on side with futurama’s take - “God does just enough to make you think he did nothing at all”. On another note, have you heard the idea that if you were able to get past the speed of light - you could be everywhere at all times..?

You both keep making the same fundamental error: that science (already) has the complete answer on everything. As long as you do not see what science is: knowledge based on observation, and not as a discipline that has all answers on our final questions, you will fall for using theological argumentation in the domain of science. When science has unanswered questions, the recipe is doing more research, and try to answer more questions. This is necessary a slow process. Scientists cannot answer big questions without answering the smaller questions that make up the way to answer the bigger questions. You both just pick some unanswered big questions of science, show that these are not answered (yet?), or refer to the fact that you cannot imagine how an answer could look like, and then think somehow atheism is disproved. Do you really think this is some tight argumentation that atheism is in a crisis?

Then you overlook the obvious historical fact that science has been the biggest factor in the rising of atheism. All kinds of phenomena where the existence of a god were postulated as cause for them, these were replaced by natural explanations: thunder and lightning, the rising of the Nile, the harmony of the spheres, the emergence of life, etc etc: all have scientific explanations. So your position is that of a ‘god of the gaps’: a god must explain what science has not explained.

And then: such unfilled gaps in our knowledge are in no way a ground for moral or the meaning of life. Knowledge about nature is not a ground for moral or the meaning of life, even less the gaps in that knowledge.

And as last remark: if your argumentations would be valid, they can at most lead to a position I would call ‘a-atheist’. It would mean you are not atheists. But it contains no positive clue for any of the gods humans have invented: Yahweh, Brahman, Odin, or whatever. And for that reason it also cannot lead you to any positive idea of moral or meaning in life.

as usual - rather than informative or challenging, your limited posts only show that you are without substance and afraid of criticism

Wrong again…no surprise there.

For one thing, you haven’t offered a valid criticsism.

Not one.

Anywhere.

For another, all of your claims and your questions have been addressed. Every single one of them, and by people better versed on these issues then I am. If you had ACTUALLY paid attention, you would know this. (I have. While I haven’t learned anything from you, I keep learning more from the people who are responding to you.)

Instead, you’re offering the same collection of loaded questions and assorted other logical fallacies over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Signature

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

The difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist can visualize (theorize) a universe that does not need a god to exist, while a theist cannot visualize (theorize) a universe without the need for a god to exist.

There is abundant scientific evidence that the universe could have spontaneously (inevitably) emerged and functions very well without the assistance of an outside observer. BB, background radiation, expansion, molecular attractions, elemental particles, universal constants, etc, etc. all offer predictable behaviors and are in fact used in everyday life.

There is zero scientific or spiritual evidence in scripture that god was a necessary ingredient in the creation of the universe or is necessary to the continuation of universal evolution. Theists still use terms like “god works in mysterious ways” and “it is a miracle”, which does not add anything to knowledge (and therefore our continued human evolution).

The only possible claim theists can make is that there must have been something which came before the BB. Even this theory has been scientifically debunked. It is entire possible and apparently inevitable that the BB would happen without a nudge from an supernatural hand. That is just stubbornly clinging to a concept which was invented 6000 years ago by simple uneducated people, who had no clue how things worked. Remember, disease was once called “demon possession”. I belief that integral idea of good and bad spirits has been debunked. Anybody who still practices exorcism still lives in barbaric times, exactly where scripture still dwells.

btw, evolution does not always mean “becoming better”, in natural history of the universe and the earth, many things have evolved and many things have devolved. Natural selection is not an “intelligent” process, it is a process of trial and error and there are no guarantees that the earth could not be overrun by an immortal “slime organisms” which has the ability to regenerate as long as it receives energy in some form. There is already a jellyfish which is immortal. It is able to keep dividing and make little clones of itself forever.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090130-immortal-jellyfish-swarm.html

Perhaps god choose this creature as his favorite, after all it has become immortal….....

as usual - rather than informative or challenging, your limited posts only show that you are without substance and afraid of criticism

Wrong again…no surprise there.

For one thing, you haven’t offered a valid criticsism.

Not one.

Anywhere.

For another, all of your claims and your questions have been addressed. Every single one of them, and by people better versed on these issues then I am. If you had ACTUALLY paid attention, you would know this. (I have. While I haven’t learned anything from you, I keep learning more from the people who are responding to you.)

Instead, you’re offering the same collection of loaded questions and assorted other logical fallacies over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I may have asked you already but - do you think a higher being would want to provide us with empirical evidence? Would it be a benefit to our existence or a detriment? Imagine how would it change our psyche. I like the Spock analogy - but I’m more on side with futurama’s take - “God does just enough to make you think he did nothing at all”. On another note, have you heard the idea that if you were able to get past the speed of light - you could be everywhere at all times..?

I was going to respond in kind Patrick but GdB and Write beat me to it and in a much more erudite manner than my intended response. So I’ll be brief; it appears that you mean to frame your argument with “if god, then empirical evidence”. It doesn’t work that way. The hypothesis is “does a supernatural entity exist”? Now test the hypothesis using any and all evidence, if any. Please publish your findings. I’m burning with curiosity to know.

I was going to respond in kind Patrick but GdB and Write beat me to it and in a much more erudite manner than my intended response. So I’ll be brief; it appears that you mean to frame your argument with “if god, then empirical evidence”. It doesn’t work that way. The hypothesis is “does a supernatural entity exist”? Now test the hypothesis using any and all evidence, if any. Please publish your findings. I’m burning with curiosity to know.

Cap’t Jack

You’re right Cap’t. Until sobpatrick shows us some evidence a god exists he’s just wasting our time. All he has done so far is demonstrate his ignorance of science and his unwillingness to think outside the box he crawled inside.

Signature

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

The difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist can visualize (theorize) a universe that does not need a god to exist, while a theist cannot visualize (theorize) a universe without the need for a god to exist. Really?

I’m a theist and supporter of science. I can theorize a universe without the need for a god. Beliefs are beliefs. And science is science.

Here are the critical questions. How do we explain our universe? And how do we explain the explanation of our universe? When it comes to theorizing about an ultimate explanation we have two options: the ultimate metascientific explanation is self-referential and can explain itself or the ultimate metascientific explanation is not self-referential and cannot explain itself.

All the American theists out there who doubt evolution should ask themselves why almost all European theists know that evolution is a fact. Creationism and intelligent design are nonsense. Understanding evolution properly can help us find better treatments for all kinds of diseases including cancer. Rejecting evolution endangers lives.

Atheism will continue to exist. Religions will continue to exist. Hopefully more and more religious people will embrace the Age of Enlightenment.

The difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist can visualize (theorize) a universe that does not need a god to exist, while a theist cannot visualize (theorize) a universe without the need for a god to exist. Really?

I’m a theist and supporter of science. I can theorize a universe without the need for a god. Beliefs are beliefs. And science is science.

Here are the critical questions. How do we explain our universe? And how do we explain the explanation of our universe? When it comes to theorizing about an ultimate explanation we have two options: the ultimate metascientific explanation is self-referential and can explain itself or the ultimate metascientific explanation is not self-referential and cannot explain itself.

All the American theists out there who doubt evolution should ask themselves why almost all European theists know that evolution is a fact. Creationism and intelligent design are nonsense. Understanding evolution properly can help us find better treatments for all kinds of diseases including cancer. Rejecting evolution endangers lives.

Atheism will continue to exist. Religions will continue to exist. Hopefully more and more religious people will embrace the Age of Enlightenment.

Why do we need to understand evolution to treat diseases? Why not just pray to be cured?